On a question of accent and cognitive patterns (very preliminary, and likely to remain so).
Outlook and accent
I think that it may be said that there is a relationship between accents and cognitive patters relating to a temporary outlook (as when one is held under the sway of another's manner of speech) or identity (as when, shall we say, a person moves from one community to another--within the same language--and is confronted with whether they can or will or want to hold on to a way of speaking, which to others is an accent, but, to themselves can be nothing other than the most natural communication they have ever known). So, for example, we may say to "lose an accent" is to lose (or put aside) what has been a part of yourself, and also that no one has an accent until they are in the unfamiliar.
In one way, it seems we are caught in a tension between two forces one may call the babel force (in which communities, groups, families, and individuals continually tend toward more private languages) and a force (which I haven't assigned a fanciful name yet) that impels individuals (families, groups, communities, etc) toward expression outwards. There is perhaps a balance point at any given time and for any given person between the joy of increasing familiarity and intimacy and the joy of more widely knowing and being known. This may be a part of the secret of who will keep or lose their own way of speaking?
Memory Vocabulary and Syntactic Immersiveness
A separate theoretical path is the concept that words are, in very large part, a special function of memory (other parts for example consisting of logical/mechanical functions of a linguistic system, such as "of" "an" "this," and a more important part, which I am calling cognitive imagination--that is, the way in which we interact with abstract concepts/phenomena which are new to us or on the whole theoretical).
It seems to me that memory calls to memory (which arises from the idea that memories are often potentially immersive), and so when we call chiefly upon the portion of our vocabulary which consists of specialized forms of memory, we tend to remain constant or strengthen whatever current verbal (and non-verbal) clothing our communication is dressed in (i.e. accent or gesture or facial expression). In particular instances, such as recounting a traumatic experience, the call and interplay of memory to memory may awaken a past manner of speaking (for example a language formerly spoken, or in a different way even childishness, for instance).
In passing, can we not say that as "memory calls to memory," so" words call to words," and that syntax is in its own way potentially "immersive" in the mechanism by which it conveys meaning? And in speech, syntactic meaning is essentially inseparable from intonation. And it seems the way in which the intonation of a sentence flows is a fundamental part of accent.
Cognitive Imagination and Change
On the other hand, when unfamiliar concepts or events call upon us to use the functions of cognitive imagination, these abstractions which have no antecedent memories tend toward forming wholly new manners of speaking. So, one sees a community of experts with a special way of interacting, or, one visits a foreign country and takes up speaking in the hesitating/broken way in which the local people are perhaps using English (as if this is the general way of communication in this place, and as if one didn't know English very well oneself--but does one, actually, know that English--the English which describes the unfamiliar ways, sights, and experiences in this land--and so in a way you and the local people both communicate as travelers of sorts, but that is a digression).
This function of cognitive imagination is related to the babel force mentioned above. The forming of increasingly private languages has to do with the extent to which your personal memories are related to collective memories of a community. On one hand, five friends go for a two-month trip to, shall we say, Europe. They could be in a band, hitchhiking it, or just wealthy like that, you decide. When they return, who could doubt the special collective memory (we imagine that they have become even closer friends overall in this scenario) will have caused them to have a specialized vocabulary--not necessarily different words, but at the least different meanings, which is in effect to say different memories that have become attached to whatever words they use.
One might say this has little to do with accent, until one considers the instance of a group of British persons exiled to Australia. Is this question of collective memory not a possibility for at least partially describing why the accents begin to diverge? Indeed, to go further, let us consider that each generation encounters language through the cognitive imagination, and so creates their own overlapping memory vocabulary, and so the language changes, as do the accents.
However, in the end, it seems prudent to propose not that there is a direct relationship between accents and one's outlook, but that both accent and outlook have to do with both personal and collective memory (among other things, particularly in the case of outlook). Because the influence at the root works itself out in different ways for speech and more general cognition, it is more prudent perhaps to suggest that there would be probabilities or tendencies of associations between manner of speaking and manner of thinking. And furthermore, it would be contrary to observation to suggest that common accent creates a cognitive monolith within a community--on the contrary, we are aware that those around us who share our way of speaking by no means share our way of thinking (at least, because they share our way of speaking, perhaps, we are more acutely aware of our perception of their different way of thinking--until we actually encounter one who both speaks and thinks differently from us--and then we have no mechanism for distinguishing which is at the root of our misunderstanding).
I do think all of these things indicate a connection between accent/manner of speaking and cognitive patters which we might commonly describe as our "outlook" on life. However, this is furthermore an extremely complex connection because we are sentient speakers, and can be aware of our own speaking, and can, for example, have opinions (conscious or unconscious) about whether we would like to lose a part of ourselves when we sense we are losing an "accent" (which is really picking up a new accent).
Further Possibilities
It seems possible all this still leaves open the question of whether, for instance, what we may consider a "French accent" indicates a peculiarly French framework of cognition (outlook), or whether it simply indicates that this person we are speaking with is at this point speaking in a natural way as a French speaker speaking in English, but that were we to be communicating in French, we might realize his or her perspective to be what we type "Midwestern." I tend to think, however, that there is no direct parallel to "Midwestern (American) outlook" in French thought, because there is no language/dialect that describes this outlook in a directly parallel way.
There is no way to be immersed in on outlook until there are building blocks of "memory vocabulary," if you will. Although, creating this memory vocabulary does not imply the need to create an entire new set of memories--there must be some key blocks that, if laid down, give new shape to those already in place. At this point, it becomes very difficult not to conflate identity (in community), language, dialect, accent, and non-verbal communication.
posted by will keillor @ Tuesday, May 24, 2011
0 comments
